Legal trouble! I received a DMCA notice, what should I do? Do not download movies!!!

[SolidGun]

I can't remember what they said at one time on ScreenSavers about receiving Digital millenium copyrights act notices from your ISP!?!?!?!

I was downloading Spiderman 2 off of a torrent site (thinking that it was just a trailer, I thought it said 70MB, but it is 700MB), and my ISP stopped my internet connection(this only affected my PB which I wasn't using to download anything, my pc's connection is fine, which I was using to download). They are investigating and they made me fill out a form and swear that I have removed the file.
I did fill out the form and swear, but I think that was not the recommended action....

Anyone know what is suppose to be done to prevent more legal problems?

BTW do not download Columbia/Tristar pictures, which Spiderman 2 was.

[jxyama]

BTW do not download Columbia/Tristar pictures, which Spiderman 2 was.

if you aren't willing to face the consequences, don't download something you have no legal posession of. period. :rolleyes:

[jxyama]

I was downloading Spiderman 2 off of a torrent site (thinking that it was just a trailer, I thought it said 70MB, but it is 700MB),

:rolleyes:

you don't need torrent to get trailers, esp. for such a "popular" and widely distrbuted movie. sure, you thought it was 70 MB...

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_2/trailer/

they even give you an option to download...

[saabmp3]

I have found BT to be the WORST offended when it comes to putting you out in the open for people to find you. Countless people on my college network have gotten these notices.

Basically, alot of people have stopped using BT for movies and music, you just don't want to put your name out there like that.

BEN

[SolidGun]

Thx for your POSITIVE input on this matter saabmp3. :)

[mkrishnan]

Wait, so how do you know they stopped your PB's internet connection? When you say they stopped one but not the other, do you mean they've blocked the MAC address off your PB? :confused: And did they say they stopped it cuz of this? I wonder how they picked the MAC address, or even the dynamic IP, if it wasn't the one doing the BT to begin with.

[JzzTrump22]

What torrent site were you trying to download from?

[musicpyrite]

What torrent site were you trying to download from?

Translation: Tell me what site your downloading from so I don't use that one. :D

If I had to guess, I think it probbably would be suprnova.org. I've tried to cut back on downloading from that site (and all sites for that matter) because I've heard rumors that the RIAA and MPAA are monitoring it, and also the feds too.

SolidGun -- Keep us posted, hope nothing too serous happens....

[iJon]

that really sucks, sorry man. hopefully it works out fine. luckily i dont download movies, but i may have to watch out on the music portion. i don't get much but probably still risky. i'm still curious to know what site he is talking about.

iJon

[jxyama]

Thx for your POSITIVE input on this matter saabmp3. :)

sorry. :p

[AmigoMac]

<nelson> Haaa haaa! </nelson> ;)

[JzzTrump22]

Translation: Tell me what site your downloading from so I don't use that one. :D

lol. I don't dl movies. Once in a while i will dl a torrent but not all the time. I just wanted to know what site are being monitored. I figured it was suprnova. I don't know why the gov wastes it's time monitoring sites like this. If they do manage to close a website, another 5 will open up.

[Xenious]

Remember, if you download movies then the guy that painted the set for Dick Tracy won't get his money. *sniff* *sniff* ahahah Man those advertisements annoy me to no end.

You know who really doesn't get their money, the Production Company! ahah I dunno maybe ol Tobey will take his direction from Lars and decide he isn't getting his fare share of his (probably) multi million dollar salary and go after the "Acursed" file sharers!

ahahhaha
-jim

[Le Big Mac]

IThey are investigating and they made me fill out a form and swear that I have removed the file.
I did fill out the form and swear, but I think that was not the recommended action....

Anyone know what is suppose to be done to prevent more legal problems?

.

Did you keep a copy of the form that you signed? There's not much you can do until someone contacts you, other than to be careful from now on. If it happens only once, you can explain it as an innocent mistake (whether or not it actually was). But if you keep doing it, or have a bunch of movies on your HD already, then if they come after you and look at your computer, the "innoncent mistake" defense won't work so much.

[Horrortaxi]

What you do is get a lawyer. Now.

If this is a letter from your ISP because they noticed suspicious traffic I don't think you're in immediate danger. If it's a letter saying that the MPAA or RIAA have been asking about you then it's okay to crap your pants.

What you did by swearing to remove the file was swear that you have the file in the first place. If you promise not to do it again, it affirms that you have done it in the past. These can be used against you in court and that's why it isn't recommended. Your lawyer can tell you more.

Let's not limit this to Columbia/Tri-Star pictures though. You know that the same thing could have happened no matter what you downloaded.

[MikeLaRiviere]

HorrorTaxi's point is a good one. Not too long ago the RIAA offered an amnesty form wherein the RIAA agreed not to sue the user; however, the user could be sued by the actual copyright holder or anyone else who had standing to sue. Not signing the document would be a very good idea; ISPs are not in the business of turning over their customers to the RIAA, and you currently hold no obligation toward anyone.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to get a lawyer, but you may want to switch ISPs. Also, I'm not telling you to do so, but removing any indication that you downloaded/had the file would also be a good idea.

I'm not clear on how the ISP blocked only one of your computers. Could you clarify? Also, can you post a scan of the document you were sent? I'm sure we're all eager to see what it looks like.

Mike LaRiviere

[SolidGun]

Being blocked off.....

What happens is when I try to connect to a site it will redirect me to CableOne and take me to the explanation on why my internet connection has been severed. However, this only happens when I am trying to connect on my PB. My PC, which I used to download stuff, isn't affected by this and I am able to use the connection.
It is only an e-statement, and I filled out since I was actually downloading the trailer....I should have gone through the legal site, but I needed the extra MB upload at that torrent site, this isn't limited to one torrent tracker either.

It is funny that I am getting that notice for downloading the trailer....never when I previously downloaded "other" similar stuff.

Thanks for all your input and stay away from movie torrents.

[hcuar]

Do not! I repeat... Do NOT. Send that letter back. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The Screensaver's had a lawyer specializing in copyright violations. He said that by sending the letter back you are admitting guilt. You will not have any recourse to fight in court. :eek:

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says....at least get your story straight - in your first post you say: I was downloading Spiderman 2 off of a torrent site (thinking that it was just a trailer, I thought it said 70MB, but it is 700MB) and then later you say It is funny that I am getting that notice for downloading the trailer so....did you d/l the movie or the trailer....I suspect your first post is the right one - it was the movie.....oh yeah!

[Krizoitz]

Yeah right...the trailer. I'm sorry but imo anyone who knows enough to use bit-torrent knows what they are doing. Why would you download a trailer off a bit-torrent site when you can get them for free on the web? This is like that guy who claimed he was only downloading what he thought was a "demo" off a file sharing site of Office 2004. Yeah right. Stop downloading movies if you don't want to get caught.

[Horrortaxi]

Somebody who is slick enough with technology to use bit torrent should also be slick enough to go to the right place to get a trailer and slick enough to know that the trailer isn't going to be 70MB. Having said that, a jury might believe that you made an innocent mistake. This depends on 2 things though--your lawyer and theirs. Seeing as how the MPAA probably has better representation than you do it seems more likely that they could convince a jury to see their side. Juries are infamously ignorant though, so anything can happen. If it were a bench trial (judge, no jury) then forget it. Even if the judge wasn't slick with the technology, he/she can still smell BS a mile away. If it goes to trial, ask for a jury trial...or just settle and learn a lesson.

Are you under or over 18, by the way?

[SolidGun]

No, I did think it was the trailer, and I wanted to see it cause I saw the movie in the theater.
The torrent site was in Spanish and the description indicated Spiderman2.... and 70MB. Have you seen a full feature movie that is only 70MB? That is why I thought it was the trailer. That and I needed small enough file that I can seed out as well.
But never mind, I already replied and have no intention of downloading movies again. If they sue me, I will keep you up to date, but I don't think that will be happening anytime soon.

[zyuzin4]

I'm glad my ISP is not yet pissing their pants because of the RIAA and MPAA.

[MikeLaRiviere]

Y'all, stop trying to freak out this guy. Look buddy, no one's taking you to court, you don't need a lawyer, and the RIAA would never allow you to have a jury trial. Nothing's going to happen to you. It looks like your ISP is quick to narc, so I'd keep the illegality to a minimum, at least until you're off everyone's radar.

You're not a huge warez dealer or bootlegger; you're not in any trouble. Ignore any post here that frightens you. I'll be happy to bet anyone here that you are never contacted by the RIAA or MPAA. Just follow the law from now on and you'll be good.

Mike LaRiviere

[SolidGun]

MikeLaRiviere's advice has had most impact on me so far. I am really not too concerned about getting sued at this time. I have talked to a few people and my dad's attorney friend and they told me that I shouldn't have admitted, but the sworn statement didn't include enough to get me into any trouble. Also, the link to the foreign torrent no longer shows up in the FindTorrent program.
If they sue me, it won't be too bad either, I have enough under my belt and good community support. So I think I will be moving on from this discussion. Thx for your support people and no thanks to you "others".

[musicpyrite]

MikeLaRiviere's advice has had most impact on me so far. I am really not too concerned about getting sued at this time. I have talked to a few people and my dad's attorney friend and they told me that I shouldn't have admitted, but the sworn statement didn't include enough to get me into any trouble. Also, the link to the foreign torrent no longer shows up in the FindTorrent program.
If they sue me, it won't be too bad either, I have enough under my belt and good community support. So I think I will be moving on from this discussion. Thx for your support people and no thanks to you "others".

Good for you, hope you don't get into too much trouble, if any at all.

MikeLaRiviere -- do you have anyting to backup what you said? I bet other people are curious (myself included) as to where you get your info and how to deal with these types of situations. You never know.... ;)

[Horrortaxi]

Thx for your support people and no thanks to you "others".
When in doubt, always ignore the bad stuff that could happen to you--because it probably won't. Drive really fast, clean loaded guns, download illegal content from the internet. Bad things only happen to other people.

[Sol]

Duff-Man says....at least get your story straight - in your first post you say: and then later you say so....did you d/l the movie or the trailer....I suspect your first post is the right one - it was the movie.....oh yeah!

Hey Duff-Man, in the forum thread titled 'Simpsons' Will Out a Gay Character' someone posted that YOU are gay. What do you say to that?

[MikeLaRiviere]

Musicpyrite, what I've said thus far is based on information that all of us have read at some point. I myself haven't been sued nor contacted by my ISP for any reason, but I'll expound on the points I made. I welcome people to challenge my logic, as the discussion should benefit many of us.

The first point I made was that the RIAA earlier offered an amnesty program, wherein it would agree not to sue those who signed the document. Now, this is an admission of guilt, and while the RIAA can no longer sue, other parties with standing may sue. This might include the artist or another interested party. Essentially it is a bad idea to sign simply because it opens the door to a lawsuit, albeit one not from the RIAA.

The second point I made was that switching ISPs might be a good idea. From what I've read, some ISPs are more loyal to their customers' privacy, and others are quick to give up their customers to the RIAA/MPAA. Verizon, for instance, fought over this in court for a bit. Further, switching ISPs would ensure that he receive a new (clean) IP address.

The third point I made was that he was not going to court. Thus far, he has received electronic notice from his ISP. The fact that the notice is electronic is the first "green flag," indicating that it is not of such great importance that it warrants a paper (snail mail) warning. Because he has not received any notification from the RIAA/MPAA or from a court, there is no reason to think he is going to court.

The fourth point I made was that he does not need a lawyer. This point ties into the third, in that he shouldn't actually spend money on a lawyer until he has reason to believe he is going to court. What he did, which was talk to attorney friends of his, was a good idea. Unless someone has pending litigation against him or her, there is no reason to spend money on a lawyer.

The fifth point I made was that the RIAA/MPAA would never allow him to go to a jury trial. First among the reasons why is that there is no precedent for a jury trial (or any trial, for that matter) against a file-sharer. They all settle out of court for substantially less than they took. And bear in mind that those whom the RIAA has sued were users who offered up massive amounts of files. The "problem" with the BitTorrent protocol is, of course, that all downloaders are forced to upload files; no freeloaders exist on the network (theoretically). Therefore, with regard to downloading a seventy or seven hundred megabyte file, and sharing that one file, there is simply no precedent for suing based on such a small offense. Granted, I realize the RIAA is going after smaller offenders, but this offense is far too small to warrant legal action. In addition, I stress that a jury trial would never occur because the RIAA realizes that too many people download files - the result of a trial by jury of the file-sharer's peers (no pun intended) would result in a disastrous precedent for the RIAA/MPAA.

Finally, it is important to realize that the only way one can be caught by the RIAA/MPAA is by sharing (i.e., offering) files to others. Although they are disliked by users of peer-to-peer networks, freeloaders (who only download and won't upload) can't be caught. As long as their library is not shared nor visible, there is no way for them to be caught. The BitTorrent protocol requires uploading (although upload speed can be set to zero kbps), so its users are more vulnerable to being caught.

Of course, the only way to be sure to avoid problems is to follow US law (even if you don't live in the US).

Mike LaRiviere

[musicpyrite]

Musicpyrite, what I've said thus far is based on information that all of us have read at some point. I myself haven't been sued nor contacted by my ISP for any reason, but I'll expound on the points I made. I welcome people to challenge my logic, as the discussion should benefit many of us.


Thanks for clearing that up Mike, I'll keep that in mind just in case I get into any trouble. And I wasn't challenging you logic, I just wanted to know more on the subject. ;)

[superbovine]

Musicpyrite, what I've said thus far is based on information that all of us have read at some point. I myself haven't been sued nor contacted by my ISP for any reason, but I'll expound on the points I made. I welcome people to challenge my logic, as the discussion should benefit many of us.

The first point I made was that the RIAA earlier offered an amnesty program, wherein it would agree not to sue those who signed the document. Now, this is an admission of guilt, and while the RIAA can no longer sue, other parties with standing may sue. This might include the artist or another interested party. Essentially it is a bad idea to sign simply because it opens the door to a lawsuit, albeit one not from the RIAA.

The second point I made was that switching ISPs might be a good idea. From what I've read, some ISPs are more loyal to their customers' privacy, and others are quick to give up their customers to the RIAA/MPAA. Verizon, for instance, fought over this in court for a bit. Further, switching ISPs would ensure that he receive a new (clean) IP address.

The third point I made was that he was not going to court. Thus far, he has received electronic notice from his ISP. The fact that the notice is electronic is the first "green flag," indicating that it is not of such great importance that it warrants a paper (snail mail) warning. Because he has not received any notification from the RIAA/MPAA or from a court, there is no reason to think he is going to court.



I am with you on the switch ISP things. Also he should get a broadrouter, which has cloneable MAC address. They block his Mac via is Mac address, that is why his PC isn't being redirected towards the legal page. With a router if that ever happens all he has to do is call them up and say he bought a new router and would like to register to the MAC address and just cloneable another number.

As to the "green flag" i am with you on that as well, but I would like him to post the message he actually got. I don't think he is fully conveying the message in the statement. I am interested because it is cableone's stance would might point out their legal departments strategy for not getting sued.

[MikeLaRiviere]

Thanks for clearing up how they blocked his one computer, SuperBovine. I couldn't figure out how they'd take care of one specific computer, especially if his router was using DHCP, which most do use by default. MAC address must be it. Is there not a way to change the MAC address of a computer from within the router software?

Mike LaRiviere

[janey]

Thanks for clearing up how they blocked his one computer, SuperBovine. I couldn't figure out how they'd take care of one specific computer, especially if his router was using DHCP, which most do use by default. MAC address must be it. Is there not a way to change the MAC address of a computer from within the router software?

Mike LaRiviere
you can change it on most computers, not with router software, but built in software (ie ifconfig) (:

[iNetwork]

lol. I don't dl movies. Once in a while i will dl a torrent but not all the time. I just wanted to know what site are being monitored. I figured it was suprnova. I don't know why the gov wastes it's time monitoring sites like this. If they do manage to close a website, another 5 will open up.
The gov doesn't monitor these. Private Corporations like Columbia/Tristar and all of the other major ones do it as well. With torrents, it doesn't matter what site you get the .torrent from, you can still get caught. These major labels basically have started port scanning all of the popular high-speed internet ISP's IP address ranges. If a torrent port is open, you can query the port to see what is available. All of this can be scripted to occur automatically and ip addresses are logged and what each IP was sharing!

If you're sharing something that happens to be in their database then they contact your isp (and sometimes threaten them) and your isp then contacts you. If you do not quit sharing said file(s) the label can then get a court document to subpeona your account information which is normally protected by your isp. They then proceed to sue you. So unless your records have been subpeoned then you don't have to worry yet...

Make sure you write a letter explaining the situation to your ISP ONLY and that you will never do it again. Don't either. Do not directly contact the DMCA or the Label as they will definately come after you as soon as you expose yourself. Your ISP is a buffer between you and jail--beleive it or not. As I said earlier they must get court approval (which costs time and money) to get your personal info from the ISP.

BTW on Linksys routers you can change the mac addy of the router and get a new IP from your ISP...Just make something up, that's what I did lol... :o

[SolidGun]

Thank you all for giving me advices. I know that at one point or another we commit illicit actions, and yes there should be punishment if you get caught. I have realized that I am getting too old to be participating in those activities and I am ready to get my hands clean of it.
Thanks again everyone.

[mainstreetmark]

Doesn't all this mess point to the fact that there simply is no alternative for digital movie distribution? Sure, I can order a DVD on Amazon and it'll be here in 5 days, but I'd rather download it in 5 hours, which I can currently do with torrents.

If there were a reliable iTunes-Music-Store-esque service out there for movies that doesn't suck, I'd be a customer.

[King Cobra]

Dial-up users, such as myself, would have to pull overnighters on full DVD downloads for 5 weeks...lucky us. I think I'll just check out the used DVD section at Amazon.com instead.

[jared_kipe]

I have found BT to be the WORST offended when it comes to putting you out in the open for people to find you. Countless people on my college network have gotten these notices.

Basically, alot of people have stopped using BT for movies and music, you just don't want to put your name out there like that.

BEN

You mean people actually use their real name and location for that stuff? I specifically have a fake email and name for use with things like that.

[billwest9999]

get a friend who lives in canada or europe to dl movies for u and then send it to u. this way u wont't get caught.

[Shaun.P]

Someone asked the question 'are you under 18?'. Does the law change if the person downloading movies etc, is under 18? How so?

[edesignuk]

This is why I only get torrents from "special" private trackers ;) :D

[slughead]

What you do is get a lawyer. Now.

In case you needed a 2nd opinion:

Get a Lawyer. Now.

I have been charged with a computer crime before. What you do is turn your computer off, call a lawyer, and go over EVERYTHING HONESTLY with him.

The next step might be to have convenient "hard drive error" caused by a "virus" which means you have to zero your hard drive 8 times.

Then, you only reinstall those pieces of software for which you have a license that is readily available. Even if you own the software, do not reinstall it unless you have proof that you have a license. MS does this with a little holographic serial number sticker, Adobe (I think) just requires the CD.

A lot of you don't feel any sympathy for this guy but believe me, what could happen to him in this case is really messed up. And all over a $15 movie.

[MikeLaRiviere]

Slughead, what were you charged with?

Mike LaRiviere

[zyuzin4]

I was charged with Computer Fraudulent Use. Luckily I was only 17, the charges were dropped and probation was all that came out of it.

[Rabidjade]

I've got a letter from Microsoft directly and haven't done public P2P since. FTP baby!

[cb911]

The next step might be to have convenient "hard drive error" caused by a "virus" which means you have to zero your hard drive 8 times.

he he. :D i like that step, but only in extreme circumstances. after you zero a drive you can't use it again can you? :confused: i'd either have to be really scared or really sure before i did that...

about only getting in trouble for UL'ing (distributing, sharing) files.. that is not true! you can get into legal trouble for having any copyrighted material on your HD. so it doesn't matter whether it's there because you've DL'd it or because you're UL'ing it, you can still get in trouble.

the difference in age... if you're below 18 you won't get in trouble, it's you parents that will. so don't think you're off the hook just because you're underage.

FTP may be a more secure solution, but not if the server logs IP's. they may be ordered to had over the server logs, then they'd have all the IP's just as if they'd been watching P2P networks. more secure would be to use a site/server that doesn't log IP's, then they're not there to hand over.

i think the only completely anonymous way to get files is through Freenet, but i haven't found out how to properly get around that yet... but it does sound good. you publish a 'freepage' (the same as a webpage, but in Freenet) and then it's encoded and stored on the Freenet network, which is hosted on peers computers all over the world. because it's encoded no single file is hosted on any one computer, so no way to shut down a particular site. http://www.mugget.com/web_images/twisted.gif

or you could also use a proxy with BT or whatever file sharing app, but that would be ssoooo sloowww, and there's backdoors built into most (if not all) of those proxy apps anyway.

if you're addicted to DL'ing massive amounts of data (like me :D) and worried about getting in legal trouble because of it, i'd say it's best to stick to legal BitTorrent sites. yes there are legal BT sites, i know of quite a bit one where you can legally DL music from. just search for it, not too hard to find.

and remember - security through obscurity. ;)

[iostream.h]

Proxies are your friend.

[Horrortaxi]

Someone asked the question 'are you under 18?'. Does the law change if the person downloading movies etc, is under 18? How so?
The law doesn't change if you're a minor, but your parents are sued instead of you.

[Rabidjade]

he he. :D i like that step, but only in extreme circumstances. after you zero a drive you can't use it again can you? :confused:

Thats what a low level format is, and yes the drive is usable after that. I do it once a year on a server I have.

FTP may be a more secure solution, but not if the server logs IP's. they may be ordered to had over the server logs, then they'd have all the IP's just as if they'd been watching P2P networks. more secure would be to use a site/server that doesn't log IP's, then they're not there to hand over.

99.9% of servers that deal with any type of traffic log IP's. If they don't then they are short term servers that get moved alot or server operators who don't care about security.


you could also use a proxy with BT or whatever file sharing app, but that would be ssoooo sloowww, and there's backdoors built into most (if not all) of those proxy apps anyway.

"using proxies" is a myth anymore. Most public proxies are either so abused they quit operating, or are unknowningly opened up and soon discovered and closed. You IP sticks with you no matter how much you try to mask it at your home site. Some public proxies still operate, but at dialup speeds.


if you're addicted to DL'ing massive amounts of data (like me :D) and worried about getting in legal trouble because of it, i'd say it's best to stick to legal BitTorrent sites. yes there are legal BT sites, i know of quite a bit one where you can legally DL music from. just search for it, not too hard to find.

If it cost something somewhere, then it is illegal, period. There isn't any "legal" sites that you can openly download pirated media and software from. Laws differe from country to country and this is just for the USA.

[James L]

For the amount of time and energy exhausted on this thread people could have just gone out and watched / bought the movie! It is waaayyyy cheaper in the long run than stealing it.

Now, my super secret plan to rule the world on the other hand...

[jxyama]

(directed at no one in particular...) if you are so worried about getting caught or it is such a big trouble to keep yourself "anonymous," why not go buy them? legally. :rolleyes:

p.s. sorry for a redundant post with an "attitude," but thought it had to be said.

[musicpyrite]

I was charged with Computer Fraudulent Use. Luckily I was only 17, the charges were dropped and probation was all that came out of it.

What kind of probation?

No internet for a year? :D

[zyuzin4]

What kind of probation?

No internet for a year? :D


hah no I got 40 hrs community service to be completed in 6 months and had to write an apology letter. My parents tried to take away my computer for 6 months but that didn't last very long

[musicpyrite]

hah no I got 40 hrs community service to be completed in 6 months and had to write an apology letter. My parents tried to take away my computer for 6 months but that didn't last very long

Thats not bad, it could be worse.

I just hope that this is a wake-up call to stop doing this or face the consequences.

[zyuzin4]

Thats not bad, it could be worse.

I just hope that this is a wake-up call to stop doing this or face the consequences.

It wasn't for downloading illegal stuff though. It was because I bought a Porsche with my teachers ebay account and using that password he gave me was able to get into his email accounts and more.. What kind of person uses "55555" as their passwords

[Les Kern]

I was downloading Spiderman 2 off of a torrent site (thinking that it was just a trailer, I thought it said 70MB, but it is 700MB), .....BTW do not download Columbia/Tristar pictures, which Spiderman 2 was.

Oh COME ON. You expect us to believe that? A 70 MB trailer? You THOUGHT it was a trailer? Then you say DON'T DOWNLOAD COLUMBIA TRISTAR...." So I shouldn't even go to Apple Quicktime and VEIW it? You don't HAVE to download anything.
Buddy, now you're sweating, and you're a "casual" pirate looking for a way out. Well we don't have it, unless you take my advice: Spend $9 and go see it ($4 matinee). Popcorn extra. Take a date.
You will get no sympathy here (probably) Sheesh.

[MikeLaRiviere]

Les you should read the entire thread before you post. Earlier someone commented that merely possessing, i.e., having downloaded copyrighted material can get one in trouble. However, there is no way for anyone to know that one has the copyrighted material unless one shares the files or broadcasts one's library. Therefore, uploading/displaying a library is the only way one can be caught. In addition, the RIAA went about getting people in trouble by first downloading the file, and then comparing it to the company's records of commonly shared files (viewing the nuances, metadata, etc.). It is important to realize that the RIAA downloaded the files.

Having files on one's hard drive, in a folder where they cannot be seen nor shared, cannot get one in trouble. The BitTorrent protocol gets people in trouble because there is almost no way not to upload. A caveat: some programs come with anti-piracy files that "phone home" to their creator, though the companies claim no personally identifiable information is sent.

Mike LaRiviere

[iJon]

\ The BitTorrent protocol gets people in trouble because there is almost no way not to upload. A caveat: some programs come with anti-piracy files that "phone home" to their creator, though the companies claim no personally identifiable information is sent.

Mike LaRiviere
there are 3rd party applications for bit torrent, and you can turn off uploading.

iJon

[applemacdude]

What was your isp?

[FriarCrazy]

How many of you have actually gotten one of those letters? My friends played a NASTY trick on me and mocked one up. They went through my computer and made a list of all my files, etc. They even got my mom in on it. I come home one day and she sits me down and explains how I won't be going to college, I'll go to jail, we're gonna lose all of our money, etc. Needless to say, I just about killed myself. It's the scariest thing in the world, and I only had to endure it for five minutes. Do what I did. Stop downloading. Legal really is better.

[Les Kern]

The next step might be to have convenient "hard drive error" caused by a "virus" which means you have to zero your hard drive 8 times.

Actually, buy another one. $100 is all it takes. Drop the old one in a river.

[slughead]

Slughead, what were you charged with?

Mike LaRiviere

Some freaky e-mails were apparently sent and were linked to me after 9/11/01. The charge was harassment, but where I live, the former attorney general (and now governor) made it legal for investigators to take your computer without a warrant with only probable cause (they never did get around to doing that though, in spite of my lawyers warnings).

I got a lawyer and the case was thrown out .. but not before a detective scared the crap out of me with threats and such. I was fresh out of high school, I get a call from a detective in a city 120 miles away about some weird crap, the guy started yelling and threatening me. It was thrown out because it had been 3 months and they hadn't sent my lawyer the police report (so I never, to this day, truly knew what I was accused of).

[cb911]

Rabidjade, i realise there's no legal sites to download pirated media form, that's kind of a contradiction. :p

but there are legal BT sites, well at least one, www.legaltorrents.com. and there are also many other legal uses for BT.

iJon, be a pal, don't turn off you uploads. :)

zyuzin4, that's pretty serious. you should be really glad that you didn't get in more trouble. and i really hope you don't try that again.

[zoetropeuk]

Actually, buy another one. $100 is all it takes. Drop the old one in a river.

Just use Apple to protect you, turn on file vault and let the OS encryt the suckers. That way if they take the hard drive they won't be able to recover the contents of your home directory. Just make sure you have a very secure password.

They still have to prove it was you. It's all to easy to spoof an IP and MAC address so just don't admit it and it would be almost impossible for them to prove it in court. I think just having the MAC and IP address is circumstantial at best.

If it did end up in court just make sure your lawyer knows a good hacker they can put up on the stand as an expert. Just let the hacker show the court how easy it is to spoof your identity online and bamm you're out of there.

Like someone else said DO NOT SEND BACK THE FORM. I think the form is their only piece of real evidence agaist you.

[slughead]

Actually, buy another one. $100 is all it takes. Drop the old one in a river.

It'd certainly be faster :)

Just use Apple to protect you, turn on file vault and let the OS encryt the suckers. That way if they take the hard drive they won't be able to recover the contents of your home directory. Just make sure you have a very secure password.

If it's a federal law that was broken, and if they care enough, they will get in anyway. Tossing the HD is the best, Zeroing 8 times is the next best, and filevault is merely a speed bump (and nobody should think otherwise).

They still have to prove it was you. It's all to easy to spoof an IP and MAC address so just don't admit it and it would be almost impossible for them to prove it in court. I think just having the MAC and IP address is circumstantial at best.

IP has been used to convict a few times in the past, but not with the DMCA. The DMCA prohibits ISPs from being prosecuted for the actions of their users.

If someone downloaded something through the proxy you set up, technically YOU downloaded it too. Under the DMCA, however, you're sitting pretty...

However, you would still have to PROOVE that this is what happened, and how are you going to do that if they recover the file on your hard drive, or you just threw your HD away?

"Reasonable Doubt" is a pipe dream, my brother and I have been on jury's several times, and all the nay-sayers get silenced pretty quick. My brother actually had to hang a jury once all by himself (on a not-guilty verdict).

If it did end up in court just make sure your lawyer knows a good hacker they can put up on the stand as an expert. Just let the hacker show the court how easy it is to spoof your identity online and bamm you're out of there.

That's a lot more dangerous than people think. If the guy is discredited or something like that, his presence can easily work against you.

Mostly that's something limited to crimes like murder or decade-long sentencing crimes. The longest sentence I ever saw for a DMCA violation was 48 months (4 years).

Every time you do a stunt like that, it costs you thousands of dollars. My case didn't even go to trial and it was $6,000. Not only that but theatrics don't work very well in real life.

Like someone else said DO NOT SEND BACK THE FORM. I think the form is their only piece of real evidence agaist you.

I don't know about "real", maybe "solid" is a better word.

It's kind of like an apology, you NEVER EVER send apologies to the supposed "victim".. It WILL be used against you.

[512ke]

Isn't it legal to download a movie you already own (for instance on DVD)?

I'm not talking about file sharing. I'm talking about downloading.

Were you perhaps given a copy of Spiderman 2 which you lost?

Did someone else perhaps give you that copy for your birthday?

Maybe that person, if you can recall who it was, still has a receipt...

In the future, Blockbuster or Netflicks might be a good option.

Good luck!

[Mord]

I have found BT to be the WORST offended when it comes to putting you out in the open for people to find you. Countless people on my college network have gotten these notices.

Basically, alot of people have stopped using BT for movies and music, you just don't want to put your name out there like that.

BEN

i've downloaded **** loads of dodgy **** with my isp demon and haven't had a problem, BT is bad though my freind got an email from symantec as he was downloading antivirus software useing bit torrent. he has now switched to demon (and there cheaper £25 a month).

[Mord]

Actually, buy another one. $100 is all it takes. Drop the old one in a river.

wipeing it and filling it with dv fotage from a dv camera is allot cheaper and easyer, if i was really paranoid and i wanted to keep the data i'd take my HD to my attic and put it in a very hidden place (i can rip out some expanding foam that surrounds my boiler and put the HD in the middle of foam in a sealed bag :eek:, it's the best place ever for hideing evidence)

[jxyama]

Isn't it legal to download a movie you already own (for instance on DVD)?

I'm not talking about file sharing. I'm talking about downloading.

Were you perhaps given a copy of Spiderman 2 which you lost?

Did someone else perhaps give you that copy for your birthday?

Maybe that person, if you can recall who it was, still has a receipt...

In the future, Blockbuster or Netflicks might be a good option.

Good luck!

not really. you will not get in trouble for it because if you own a legal copy, then for you to have a backup copy (however obtained - they can't track the source, i don't think) is fine. so they won't be able to prosecute you for having it. (having a receipt is not a proof - you could have sold it, no?)

the whole problem is that the person who make the download available doesn't have the distribution rights. so you may not be breaking the law for downloading it but you are (arguably knowingly) helping someone else break the law.

it's like buying stolen goods on the street. you know it's stolen. (unless you are terribly naive.) and i don't think there's anything wrong with buying from a thief - in a strictly legal sense - but you know something is "wrong." don't you think?

[titaniumducky]

there are 3rd party applications for bit torrent, and you can turn off uploading.

iJon

If you do, though, BitTorrent will cut down your download speeds to the point that you'd be getting Gnutella/FastTrack speeds.

[idkew]

The fifth point I made was that the RIAA/MPAA would never allow him to go to a jury trial. First among the reasons why is that there is no precedent for a jury trial (or any trial, for that matter) against a file-sharer. They all settle out of court for substantially less than they took. ........In addition, I stress that a jury trial would never occur because the RIAA realizes that too many people download files - the result of a trial by jury of the file-sharer's peers (no pun intended) would result in a disastrous precedent for the RIAA/MPAA.


Mike LaRiviere


mike- after a quick im conversation with a lawyer friend of mine- the defendant can request a jury trial after suit has been filed. the plaintiff can not stop this.

[MikeLaRiviere]

mike- after a quick im conversation with a lawyer friend of mine- the defendant can request a jury trial after suit has been filed. the plaintiff can not stop this.

That is very reassuring to hear.

Mike LaRiviere

[Chip NoVaMac]

(directed at no one in particular...) if you are so worried about getting caught or it is such a big trouble to keep yourself "anonymous," why not go buy them? legally. :rolleyes:

p.s. sorry for a redundant post with an "attitude," but thought it had to be said.

There are those of us that "innocentlY' download things. In my case I got caught up with the F-911 film download hype. I have since deleted the file once it became clearer as the legal aspects.

To answer the question of "why not go buy them? legally"; that goes very deep. It depends on whether you are talking of music and videos, verses software.

For myself I have done without software, because the "value" of that software out weighed the " dollar value" of the software. For myself, some of the prices charged are not in the real world,

[Chip NoVaMac]

mike- after a quick im conversation with a lawyer friend of mine- the defendant can request a jury trial after suit has been filed. the plaintiff can not stop this.

They can only offer a settlement (in a civil trial I believe, that such a settlement does not have to be public).

[Horrortaxi]

Were you perhaps given a copy of Spiderman 2 which you lost?
When this thread started, Spiderman 2 was in it's first week of theatric release. Anyway, if he lost it he lost it. That wouldn't entitle him to download a copy. He could buy another one and back it up. Yes, I see the problem with this--but that's my understanding of the law. Of course it's a sketchy understanding of a sketchy law.

[jxyama]

my understanding is that owning a copyrighted work, such as a music CD or a movie DVD, entitles one to make backup copies or other copies for personal use. backing up falling under the fair use of the original media the copyrighted work came on. of course, i could be completely wrong.

i don't think it entitles one to replace it in case of misplacement of the said medium. that doesn't sound like a fair use because you misplaced the very medium that you have fair use rights over. i am not sure if the fair use covers the medium or the material on the medium. i think it's over the medium - because otherwise, what's to prevent us from asking a retail store for a duplicate copy of the cd?

in any case, whoever offering the copyrighted work for free is doing something illegal so you are aiding someone else break the law by downloading it.

when we purchase a CD/DVD, are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work from the medium we purchase or are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work, period? (IANAL, anyone know better?)

[FriarCrazy]

I did some research on this a while back (as I wanted to download new digital copies of some of my Mothers old LPs) and Jxyama is correct in saying that you can make a backup copy for yourself, but you cannot download another copy. It would be OK for me to import the audio of the LPs into my computer, but I could not simply go onto kaZaa (The HORROR) and download the mp3. Same goes for movies.

In this particular situation (the downloading of spiderman 2), the real kicker is that the movie wasn't released into theaters. MUCH Stricter rules and sentences are being placed on distributing/obtaining unreleased content (Movies, CDs, even TV shows I think). Generally speaking, if you MUST download a movie, DO NOT download one that has not been released yet. The feds are probably not going to care (all that much) if you download a copy of Milo and Otis, but they're gonna get in your face (as we have seen) if you download something that is in/is coming to theaters.

[Mord]

my understanding is that owning a copyrighted work, such as a music CD or a movie DVD, entitles one to make backup copies or other copies for personal use. backing up falling under the fair use of the original media the copyrighted work came on. of course, i could be completely wrong.

i don't think it entitles one to replace it in case of misplacement of the said medium. that doesn't sound like a fair use because you misplaced the very medium that you have fair use rights over. i am not sure if the fair use covers the medium or the material on the medium. i think it's over the medium - because otherwise, what's to prevent us from asking a retail store for a duplicate copy of the cd?

in any case, whoever offering the copyrighted work for free is doing something illegal so you are aiding someone else break the law by downloading it.

when we purchase a CD/DVD, are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work from the medium we purchase or are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work, period? (IANAL, anyone know better?)

so what your saying is that when i put my diablo 2 cd in my back pocket a while back, sat on it so the cd broke :o and downloaded the cd from bit torrent scaned the cd cover in printer off a cd lable plastered it onto the burnt cd and tryed to forget my stupid action i was beaking the law?

[jxyama]

so what your saying is that when i put my diablo 2 cd in my back pocket a while back, sat on it so the cd broke :o and downloaded the cd from bit torrent scaned the cd cover in printer off a cd lable plastered it onto the burnt cd and tryed to forget my stupid action i was beaking the law?

i am not sure if you yourself technically broke any law or not. BUT:
i don't think you had the right to a replacement and you certainly helped someone else illegally distribute a copyrighted work.

try not to sit after you put your CD in your backpocket. better yet, don't put a CD in your backpocket. :D

[Gelfin]

A couple of useful resources:
Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org/)
The Subpoena Defense Alliance (http://www.subpoenadefense.org/)

I don't want to sound non-supportive here, but your story isn't so good, for reasons including the fact that the trailer is also copyrighted material. Apple has to contract with the studios to host those trailers. Now ordinarily the studios won't care if end users pass the trailer around a bit -- it's free publicity -- but if they're already after you for the movie, you might find yourself copping to infringement anyway. It's kind of like how a cop won't stop you for doing 58 in a 55 zone, but if he stops you and says you were doing 70, you better not reply, "I was only doing 58!"

If this was just a proactive action taken by your ISP (and if you were cut off mid-download, that's probably the case -- the wheels of justice don't turn that fast) then the legal system hasn't been brought into it at all, and the MPAA probably doesn't even know about it. I'd say the best thing you can do in such a case is to simply, quietly switch ISPs. I wouldn't want my ISP monitoring me that closely anyway. The more you say to them about the subject, the more might be in some record somewhere that can be subpoenaed at some later time if you have further problems. On the other hand, after you quit their service, probably through some combination of legal and administrative policies, any records about you will evaporate after some period of time, and it's probably better to start that clock running as soon as possible.

If you actually received a subpoena, then you have a real problem and you need a lawyer. Get one now, because you only have a few days to respond, legally, to the subpoena.

I can't remember what they said at one time on ScreenSavers about receiving Digital millenium copyrights act notices from your ISP!?!?!?!

I was downloading Spiderman 2 off of a torrent site (thinking that it was just a trailer, I thought it said 70MB, but it is 700MB), and my ISP stopped my internet connection(this only affected my PB which I wasn't using to download anything, my pc's connection is fine, which I was using to download). They are investigating and they made me fill out a form and swear that I have removed the file.
I did fill out the form and swear, but I think that was not the recommended action....

Anyone know what is suppose to be done to prevent more legal problems?

BTW do not download Columbia/Tristar pictures, which Spiderman 2 was.

[MikeLaRiviere]

There are so many reasons why licensing is bogus, I thought I'd put a few examples down, just for discussion's sake. People have already written similar things, but it's an interesting topic.

My CD broke; luckily, I had ripped it onto the computer, so I still had the music. However, given that I had a "license" to the music, should I be able to legally demand the original PCM/WAV/AIFF uncompressed files from the record label?

Legally, I am not allowed to make a backup of a DVD (yes, I am positive that it is illegal). However, since I paid $20 for the license to the movie, I should be able to obtain a new DVD for the price of the disc (a few dollars at most).

Let's say that I am the owner of a company that has just dissolved. Assuming I bought on a one-payment basis, I should be able to sell all of the licenses to Windows that I own.

If I own a CD and rip the songs onto my computer, but decide I no longer like the album, I should be able to a) destroy the CD, b) distribute the songs via peer-to-peer once per song, and c) delete the songs I have ripped to my computer.

Same as the previous example, but for DVDs.

Same as the previous two examples, but for software.

I am very tempted to try the aforementioned ideas simply to establish precedents for licensing. Additionally, if I download anything off of peer-to-peer networks, there is no way to prove that I knew the distributor of the file was not engaging in any of the ideas I mentioned, thereby precluding me from any legal wrongdoing.

Mike LaRiviere

[jxyama]

Let's say that I am the owner of a company that has just dissolved. Assuming I bought on a one-payment basis, I should be able to sell all of the licenses to Windows that I own.

If I own a CD and rip the songs onto my computer, but decide I no longer like the album, I should be able to a) destroy the CD, b) distribute the songs via peer-to-peer once per song, and c) delete the songs I have ripped to my computer.

many software, you can sell the licenses provided you give the discs and erase the installations you have.

you don't have the copyright, so you can't distribute the songs. buying a CD doesn't mean you now own N songs on the disc to be distributed as you see fit. (including the example where you take N songs away from yourself but then offer them to others.) buying a CD, you own the right to listen to those N songs for your personal use. you may have more rights, but re-distributing them at your leisure certainly isn't one of them.

this is why i posed the question: when you buy a CD, do you own the license to listen to those songs, period, or do you own the license to listen to those songs from the medium you purchased and other manifestations, such as backups? i think it's the latter. when you buy things that can easily be duplicated (say, computer), you didn't buy the use of those computers (in such a case, you are entitled to a free replacement...), you bought the one computer in your hands.

[MikeLaRiviere]

you don't have the copyright, so you can't distribute the songs. buying a CD doesn't mean you now own N songs on the disc to be distributed as you see fit. (including the example where you take N songs away from yourself but then offer them to others.) buying a CD, you own the right to listen to those N songs for your personal use. you may have more rights, but re-distributing them at your leisure certainly isn't one of them.

Yes, but you see, this is not "distributing as you see fit." Rather, as it is legally established that I can sell a used CD at the used records shop, so too must I be able to distribute the songs once. When I buy a CD, I am paying a (very) small portion for the physical disc, while the rest of the money goes to the RIAA and a miniscule amount to the artist. Therefore, what I am purchasing is one license to a piece of intellectual property. Regardless of whether I give sell the CD, give away the CD, or rip the CD and desroy it and distribute each song/the entire album once and destroy my own ripped files, I should fall under the bounds of the law. Were I to distribute the songs more than once, i.e., give one song to multiple users or keep a copy for myself, then I would be violating copyright laws. However, if I distribute the song to one user and destroy my copy, logically I cannot assume responsibility for the license any longer. Now, there is a provision in either the DMCA or copyright law that has something to do with secondary ownership, and I cannot remember how it works. Logically, ethically, and morally, though, I commit no wrong by distributing a single copy (interchangeable with license, as I will destroy my own copy) of a song or album, provided I destroy my copy. I believe you said this principle applies to software licensing.

Mike LaRiviere

[Horrortaxi]

so what your saying is that when i put my diablo 2 cd in my back pocket a while back, sat on it so the cd broke :o and downloaded the cd from bit torrent scaned the cd cover in printer off a cd lable plastered it onto the burnt cd and tryed to forget my stupid action i was beaking the law?
Probably.

Look at it like this: The data on your computer can (should) be backed up so that if something goes wrong you still have your data. You can't back it up after your hard drive crashes--it's too late and you've lost your data.

So you can't back up a broken cd. You also can't buy insurance after you've crashed your car.

We're talking about some broad, badly written laws. It's going to be very interesting to see them get put to the test in court...once somebody has enough balls/cash to make the challenge.

[King Cobra]

If I own a CD and rip the songs onto my computer, but decide I no longer like the album, I should be able to a) destroy the CD, b) distribute the songs via peer-to-peer once per song, and c) delete the songs I have ripped to my computer.

Same as the previous two examples, but for software.


Actually, that is not true for software. It's as simple as this: It's illegal to have more than one purchased copy of the software running on more than one machine at a time. That would rule out step b. Hence, it's impossible to redistribute the software legally over P2P without special permissions, etc. Remember the whole 15-page multiple license debate going on with alex_ant and a few others in the Jaguar released thread a while back when 10.2 came out and before Apple put out the now recognized Family Pack 5-user license of their software? The 5-user license would allow you do run the exact same copy of the software on multiple machines while those machines are on at the same time.

Now that I've said that, the mind games begin.

[MikeLaRiviere]

Actually, that is not true for software. It's as simple as this: It's illegal to have more than one purchased copy of the software running on more than one machine at a time. That would rule out step b. Hence, it's impossible to redistribute the software legally over P2P without special permissions, etc. Remember the whole 15-page multiple license debate going on with alex_ant and a few others in the Jaguar released thread a while back when 10.2 came out and before Apple put out the now recognized Family Pack 5-user license of their software? The 5-user license would allow you do run the exact same copy of the software on multiple machines while those machines are on at the same time.

Now that I've said that, the mind games begin.

Alright Cobra. You're taking this pretty deep, but that's good. Let's ASSUME that I write a program that immediately deletes the portion of the program that has just been copied, bit for bit. By this I mean, if I have 50% of the program transferred over, I only have the remaining 50% left on my computer. However, I do not know how I would do that. But another "however": I am only transferring the setup.exe (or .app, or .*) file and the serial number. Having two non-running setup files does not violate copyright or the EULA, as the anti-pirating measure (asking for the serial number) engages within the setup file.

But back to the broader topic: it is my intent to point out these loopholes to indicate that a) it is impossible to prove that someone willingly illegally distributed or obtained copyrighted intellectual property and b) licensing and copyright are too far removed from logic, ethics, and morality.

Mike LaRiviere

[jxyama]

licensing and copyright are too far removed from logic, ethics, and morality.

i respectfully disagree. i think the copyright and licensing terms are getting complicated only because digital media represents a very unique category of property where perfect duplication is easy, speedy and robust.

when we didn't have CD-Rs, it was simple. there was no way to "back up" - you own the CD you own, you could "redistribute" by lending it or selling it to others, but doing so didn't carry the potential of reaching millions so it was tolerated. it's a fairly dangerous slippery slope argument to equate making tape copies of CDs to your friends to offering the mp3 for millions of "friends." so back then, it was logical, ethical and moral. nothing complicated - CDs were like other objects. you buy what you get. if you lose it or break it, tough luck - just like everything else.

special provisions are needed and we'll see how laws adapt. in my opinion, if there was perfect DRM, i'd welcome it. i don't feel the entitlement to duplication (for backing up) just because i can't do the same for 99% of things i own. i don't see any reason why i shouldn't lose my music on my CD if i lose the CD itself. if i lose my laptop, i don't get a free replacement - so why should CDs be any different? just because i can make duplicates doesn't mean that object is somehow "different", as far as i'm concerned. i'd just be glad i can duplicate, but i wouldn't demand it as a "right."

all my personal opinion - probably not a very popular one, i realize...

[wide]

I haven't ever used Bit Torrent (because it doesn't work for my computer). I use the iTMS for music, and a friend mine insults me for it because he says that you cannot be tracked if you use LimeWire or other such programs if you disable sharing. Is this at all true, and if so, why? I usually use MovieLink or CinemaNow when I want movies online, but neither of those websites have good selections. thanks for any replies

edit: i also have a question about www.mp3search.com. ISPs know that you are using that also, right? and how do they know that you are not coincidentally downloading a file that has the same name as a move or song that might not even be copyrighted at all?

[MikeLaRiviere]

Wide, you seem like a novice, so if you're going to engage in any file-sharing, have a friend who has done a great deal of it show you how to do so without getting caught.

Jxyama, you make a good point, but we are no longer paying for the CD as a physical entity. Rather, we are now paying for a license to the intellectual property, given that it is obtainable in analog, PCM/WAV/AIFF, AAC, and WMA formats. It's similar to getting news on a newspaper or by paying for it online; I can buy a physical newspaper and have the intellectual property of the news, or I can cut out the middle man (paper) and buy the intellectual property, the news, online. Once purchased, I should be able to access the information whenever I like, at my request, which, I believe, is currently in effect.

Mike LaRiviere

[jxyama]

Jxyama, you make a good point, but we are no longer paying for the CD as a physical entity.

since when? my attitude is that we are still paying for the CD. (with desired contents.) the CD happens to have the property of being encodable in other formats that are more convenient for me, yes, but i still feel we are buying the CD and the right to listen to the contents.

(btw, i know someone else may bring up the stupid point about CDs costing next to nothing. i find that argument very irrelevant. restaurants charge many times more for their meals when ingredients could cost next to nothing.)

right now, i feel fine the way things are: i buy CDs and rip them. but the files stay with me, as they should. but if CDs suddenly couldn't be ripped, i'd switch to iTMS because i make use of encoded music much more often. i think this is the way things are going. but i do like the fact i can encode it myself to my liking by buying a cd.

there are always idiots who has to ruin the good thing by taking advantage of it. i don't care if p2p does no harm to CD sales. i don't care if illegality of downloading is morally questionable. i am being inconvenienced because the companies who provide the music thinks there are problems. whether they are right or wrong, i don't care - what matters to me is that i may lose my personal convenience of encodable CD as a (direct or indirect) result of acts of other users who i feel are abusing the system.

if everyone kept the ripped files to themselves (the way i do), then illegal sharing/downloading wouldn't exist and record companies wouldn't have thought encodable CD is a problem.

[idkew]

home taping is killing the record industry.

[musicpyrite]

home taping is killing the record industry.

You mean like when people do that when they stick a microphone in front of the radio speaker?

I do that with iTunes..... :(

[radio893fm]

So... let's say I want the Millie Vanilli's Blame it on the rain song (no jokes about my musical taste please, its just and example for the purpose of the point). Should I just dream about it or should I download it from a p2p? Should I never listen to it because nobody sells it anymore and because its illegal to download it?

And since no one sells it anymore and it is not available anywhere, would it be illegal to download? I guess it is... but, isn't it ironic?

One of the reasons of the Naspter boom was: very hard to find things, remixes, acapellas, live presentations, non-release stuff, stuff only in 8-track tapes that people put in mp3s, vinyl, etc.

The record labels droped the ball when they did not pay attention to what the demand was... thay wanted us to listen ONLY to something... but we wanted something else! MP3s came out and... you know the rest!

iTunes, besides being a good idea and good for 'standard, popular' stuff, for those of us that like electronic music, new wave and very-hard to find stuff is not good, neither is napster or any other music service now.

I do agree on not doing anything illegal... but please!!! Don't make us... fill iTunes with not a million songs... we want a TRILLION songs in there... everything that ever came out from the US, Indonesia, Colombia and any other country in the world... the day that happens no one will go on downloading music from P2Ps anymore.

[idkew]

high speed dubbing made it even worse.

will the record industry survive?

[jxyama]

One of the reasons of the Naspter boom was: very hard to find things, remixes, acapellas, live presentations, non-release stuff, stuff only in 8-track tapes that people put in mp3s, vinyl, etc.

again, i respectfully disagree. the reason for the napster boom was the fact you could get hands on music for free when it used to cost $18 a CD.

nothing more, nothing less.

free (as in beer) is a very strong driving force - you could say that people would become wanting of hard to find things or rare remixes if they are free.

btw: milli vanilli is readily available from amazon as used. and i'm sure your local used cd store would carry it. i know you pulled it as an example - but i don't think it's that easy to find things that aren't public domain but yet not available for sale. 2 min of searching online and concluding that it's not available isn't a justification for using p2p to get it, imo.

[radio893fm]

again, i respectfully disagree. the reason for the napster boom was the fact you could get hands on music for free when it used to cost $18 a CD.

nothing more, nothing less.

free (as in beer) is a very strong driving force - you could say that people would become wanting of hard to find things or rare remixes if they are free.

btw: milli vanilli is readily available from amazon as used. and i'm sure your local used cd store would carry it. i know you pulled it as an example - but i don't think it's that easy to find things that aren't public domain but yet not available for sale. 2 min of searching online and concluding that it's not available isn't a justification for using p2p to get it, imo.

I understand your point... but as I said: One of the reasons... not the reason... and we of course like free stuff... but if there is something we really want/like we pay for it... I have the option to download Sound Forge from any p2p but I buy it... why? because I like the product a lot (ignore right now the morality, the legality, etc)

And I do have a copy of Millie Vanilli... like I said: an example for the point... you could always go to eBay... but for a better example: let's say I want Jorge Cardenas - Abreme La Puerta (Remix), can you get me this one? I have been looking for it for 2 years now :) :) :) ...

[MikeLaRiviere]

If millions of people in the United States download music and don't feel bad about it, which is true? Are there millions of sociopaths roaming the streets, or is the law wrong? There's not really any in-between answer. The fact is, people who feel bad about downloading music don't download it. People who don't feel bad about it do download it. Worrying about getting caught to the extent where one will simply not file-share is simply a projection of guilt and falls under the category of feeling bad about downloading.

Note: I'll request that no religious/social conservatives/liberals/extremists (on either end) post the examples of abortion, contraception, capital punishment, etc. I'll also request that no one say things like "If I steal your wallet but don't feel bad about it, does that mean it should be legal?" or "Certain murderers kill and don't feel bad about it, but does that make it okay?" To say such things oversimplifies the issue and demonstrates a lack of knowledge and thought regarding the argument.

Mike LaRiviere

[jxyama]

I understand your point... but as I said: One of the reasons... not the reason... and we of course like free stuff... but if there is something we really want/like we pay for it... I have the option to download Sound Forge from any p2p but I buy it... why? because I like the product a lot (ignore right now the morality, the legality, etc)

i don't think so. the napster boom (boom by definition means massive popularity -> involves general masses) was driven almost exclusively because of it's free nature. those who were genuinely attracted by its ability to locate difficult to find things are a very small minority and made up for very small portion of the reasons napster took off. do you know why? because if the demand for those difficult to find things really were so strong to make napster a boom, then companies holding the copyrights for those hard to find things would make sure that they aren't so hard to find any more. there's demand then there's money to be made.

the problem with p2p is that while it may not kill the drive to legally purchase things, it definitely lowers the threashold. people will only buy things when they really, REALLY want them, where as before p2p, they would have bought things when they really want them. it lowers the perceived value of music CDs in general. and most will stop at the level of why pay when i can just get it for free for many more things than before.

i've been pissed about rising CD prices. my solution was to buy less CDs - to the point i only purchase new CDs by two or three artists and i basically ignore the rest of new stuff. once in a while, i hear good music or highly recommended musicians and give them a shot and buy their CD. otherwise, i've reverted to listening to new stuff by a few artists and also going back to older bands no longer making new music. but i've never used p2p to get my music.

[idkew]

...and vhs tapes... i love to record movies off the tv. i can even fast forward through commercials. home taping is killing the record industry.

will the movie industry survive?

surely the movie and record industry are doomed to fail becauser of these new technologies called cassette and vhs tapes.

[jxyama]

If millions of people in the United States download music and don't feel bad about it, which is true? Are there millions of sociopaths roaming the streets, or is the law wrong? There's not really any in-between answer. The fact is, people who feel bad about downloading music don't download it. People who don't feel bad about it do download it. Worrying about getting caught to the extent where one will simply not file-share is simply a projection of guilt and falls under the category of feeling bad about downloading.

i agree. the law must adapt. and things must change. i'm not going to tell everyone that the law is absolute on this matter and that them breaking it make them the criminal while excusing that the law is perfect.

i just resent the current (or recent past) attitude of it's free for all now!!! kind of attitude. and i also feel that i've been keeping myself away from the issue and somehow hurt or inconvenienced by actions of others just because there are millions of them and they don't feel it's wrong.

of course, most of them, i'd bet, don't feel bad or wrong about downloading/sharing until they get caught. and they tend to hide behind the privacy concerns or such and try to avoid accepting responsibilities for their actions.

if you think music sharing should be legal and the law needs to change, then stand up, share away and then fight the powers be and prove your point. until then, you are just a petty freerider, in my eye. what are you doing to change the law? what are you doing to remedy the situation so that the copyright holder is compensated and the music industry can't monopolize music distribution and charge outrageous fees? downloading/sharing music for one's own pleasure doesn't sound like accomplishing anything near those goals, imo. let's get one thing straight - most p2p users aren't as noble or well-thought as you are, mike. they just like free stuff because everyone likes free stuff.

as for myself, i stand far away. i think the law at hand is antiquated and it needs to change. but i'm not a willing and active advocate of it so i also stay away from taking advantage of the loopholes that exist under the current situation.

[MikeLaRiviere]

It's a very good thing I put in the request not to discuss abortion, contraception, capital punishment, etc., because at first thought my own post was going to include numerous examples along those lines. However, I think yours is a good point that we can accept the plurality of morals regarding the situation yet must recognize the singularity of the law. Therefore, your point makes sense that only after we change the law can we discuss it on a purely ethical level.

Mike LaRiviere

[mherz]

I am joining in late to this discussion with a question whether there is different chances of getting caught when downloading / uploading music, depending on the category of music.
My point is, that when you were to share a file called e.g. "Dido - life for rent.mp3", it is clear and obvious to everyone, that this file is ripped off from your or someone elses CD, which was originally sung / recorded by Dido, and you dont have a right to share it.
But, if the file is called "Bach Cello Sonata 1.mp3", is there any reasonable way for a record company to check and proof that this file is not one that you recorded yourself, or a friend of yours, because he/she is excellent in playing the cello. Maybe it sounds a bit theoretical, but as there are often hundreds of recordings of the same piece floating around, and, at least theoretically, one can record the piece oneselve and share it. Wouldnt that mean that sharing classical music is, only from the point of getting caught, a lot safer than sharing pop music?
Any experience with that?

[iMeowbot]

Wow, there is a lot of confusion in this thread. And it's no wonder, because copyright is a confusing idea. The trick is to pay attention to what it's called, copyright, the right to make copies.

For a minute, let's ignore the special "fair use" exceptions that have been added over the years, and look at the original deal. You buy a book or tape or CD, you aren't getting the copyright. The publisher who printed the thing you bought is the one who had the right to make the copy you bought, not you. All you get is the right to read/listen/view that copy.

Now, there is the fair use doctrine, which in some respects is peculiar to the US. In the case of music, it was made somewhat explicit by the Audio Home Recording Act. That law grants the additional right (not a license -- you didn't get one of those -- it's a right granted by AHRA) to make backup copies for personal use, and one of the places you are allowed the put your backup copies is on a computer peripheral. That's why devices like the iPod are designed to work the way they do, to take advantage of the special computer peripheral exemption. In general, digital copies are forbidden, and that's the reason you see so few standalone digital recorders (and when you do see them, like DAT and MD devices, they are required to add copy protection).

And yes, with that fair use thing being a quirk of national law, that does mean that devices like the iPod are technically illegal to use in some countries.

There was always the right to lend books and recordings, but not to make and give away additional copies, because no license to make copies was ever granted.

There have also been court decisions that granted limited personal rights to record broadcasts for time shifting purposes.

Since AHRA, we of course got DMCA which took away some of those extra rights if the publisher has added copy protection.

Computer software has always been a little bit different, because it's necessary to make at least one copy (into memory) to make any use of it. That's why programs had to include licensing agreements in the first place. All the other strings that have been added are, well, businesses being businesses.

So anyway, all of that is the reason you can buy something and then be allowed to do so little with it. You really don't own the content.

[edit, never did finish...]

Anyways, where the DRM stuff comes in is because all the rights are tied into making copies, and electronic transfers break the whole concept of delivering a copy to the purchaser. So, the seller in that case has to grant a limited license to copy, because otherwise the purchaser wouldn't have the right even to keep the download. In that light, the DRM schemes being attached to music are typicially more generous than what, for example, CDs offered. The big difference, of course, is that DRM actually interferes with things the purchaser doesn't have the right to do; a lot of the freedom built into traditional media was actually just the ability of purchasers to overstep the rights they actually were granted.

So, that's where all the conflict comes from. It's not that rights are being taken away -- those rights were never really there -- it's that people are becoming upset when they realize how meager those rights really were all along.

[cb911]

just a quick side note... KC, you mentioned about not having the same piece of software on more than one machine? luckily most licence agreements allow you to have the software installed on a desktop machine as well as a laptop, under the same licence. that can be very handy. ;)

[King Cobra]

No no... it's having the same software installed on more than one computer while more than one of those computers with the software on it are running at the same time. Though about your desktop and portable computer argument... I'll let that one stand, since I never heard of that before and thus can't verify it. Err...use that to your benefit, I guess.